Spacecraft Metals Left In the Wake of Humanity's Path To the Stars (purdue.edu) 20
Scientists recently noticed that the chemical fingerprint of meteor particles was starting to change.
And last month Purdue University announced that "The Space Age is leaving fingerprints on one of the most remote parts of the planet — the stratosphere — which has potential implications for climate, the ozone layer and the continued habitability of Earth." Using tools hitched to the nose cone of their research planes and sampling more than 11 miles above the planet's surface, researchers have discovered significant amounts of metals in aerosols in the atmosphere, likely from increasingly frequent launches and returns of spacecraft and satellites. That mass of metal is changing atmospheric chemistry in ways that may impact Earth's atmosphere and ozone layer...
Led by Dan Murphy, an adjunct professor in Purdue's Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences and a researcher at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the team detected more than 20 elements in ratios that mirror those used in spacecraft alloys. They found that the mass of lithium, aluminum, copper and lead from spacecraft reentry far exceeded those metals found in natural cosmic dust. Nearly 10% of large sulfuric acid particles — the particles that help protect and buffer the ozone layer — contained aluminum and other spacecraft metals.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader AmiMoJo for sharing the article.
And last month Purdue University announced that "The Space Age is leaving fingerprints on one of the most remote parts of the planet — the stratosphere — which has potential implications for climate, the ozone layer and the continued habitability of Earth." Using tools hitched to the nose cone of their research planes and sampling more than 11 miles above the planet's surface, researchers have discovered significant amounts of metals in aerosols in the atmosphere, likely from increasingly frequent launches and returns of spacecraft and satellites. That mass of metal is changing atmospheric chemistry in ways that may impact Earth's atmosphere and ozone layer...
Led by Dan Murphy, an adjunct professor in Purdue's Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences and a researcher at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the team detected more than 20 elements in ratios that mirror those used in spacecraft alloys. They found that the mass of lithium, aluminum, copper and lead from spacecraft reentry far exceeded those metals found in natural cosmic dust. Nearly 10% of large sulfuric acid particles — the particles that help protect and buffer the ozone layer — contained aluminum and other spacecraft metals.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader AmiMoJo for sharing the article.
What about exoplanets (Score:3)
Will we be able to detect distant civilizations if they have lots of weird metals in their atmosphere?
Re: (Score:2)
Will we be able to detect distant civilizations if they have lots of weird metals in their atmosphere?
Yes, but we won't recognize it as another civilization. All we'll see is excess metal and think it's in the atmosphere [cnn.com] or that it rains titanium [businessinsider.com].
Re: (Score:2)
at least someone is inquisitive to ask the one important question whenever science finds out something surprising: Is this going to kill us?
Re: (Score:2)
only if it is heavy metal blasting... or maybe rock... it has to be loud enough :p
oh you don't mean that kind of metal, sorry :p
Less exciting, but more accurate, headline (Score:2)
"Unsurprisingly, Earth's upper atmosphere includes aerosolized residues of satellites and rockets"
And what's with the unattributed opening claim? That would be slightly more interesting if shown to be true - although, again, it wouldn't be particularly surprising that stuff traversing the stratosphere might pick up residue from the stratosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think happens to the matter from all those things that are designed to burn up in the atmosphere on re-entry?
The laws of physics insist that the opening claim is true. If you don't understand that, it's a flaw in your own education that can't be remedied by one article.
Re:Less exciting, but more accurate, headline (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, to nit-pick, the laws of physics require that the atoms all be present, but not necessarily stay in the atmosphere. Much more interesting, at least to me, is that the residue from rockets and satellites (and there aren't that many launches!) completely overwhelms residue from meteors and space dust.
I'd have assumed, prior to this article, that the amount of natural stuff from space, given that it continuously enters the atmosphere, would be the larger amount because it's continuous. Individual rockets and satellites are much bigger, but there's far fewer.
Google says: it's estimated that about 100 – 300 metric tons (tonnes) of material strikes Earth every day. That adds up to about 30,000 to 100,000 tonnes per year.
In order to dwarf that signal, you'd presumably need 200,000 tonnes of rockets and satellites re-entering each year, and that sounds improbable. (This assumes the bulk of material strikes are vaporised in the atmosphere.)
However, data is data and either the estimates are way off or there's a lot more rocketry than I'd imagined.
Re:Less exciting, but more accurate, headline (Score:4, Informative)
the mass of lithium, aluminum, copper and lead from spacecraft reentry
It's not all elements. It's -those- elements. Those are elements that we refine and concentrate to levels far, far beyond what is found in nature. Your calculation assumes that the meteors and space dust would have the same density of those elements that a rocket or satellite does. They most certainly do not.
Re: (Score:3)
The laws of physics insist that the opening claim is true.
Not really, given the stratosphere isn't a closed system (nor is the earth as a whole - think about the loss of helium 3 for example). But, as I already stated, it wouldn't be surprising if it were so.
To the stars? (Score:2)
Picking nits with TFS/A titles, relatively few of humanity's spacecraft have anything to with "the stars" and/or a path to them.
I have a similar complaint about the title of the movie "Ad Astra".
Re: To the stars? (Score:2)
Is that the film about the Vauxhall Sales and Marketing Division, set in the 1980's?
Re: (Score:2)
Is that the film about the Vauxhall Sales and Marketing Division, set in the 1980's?
No, but I'm guessing that would have been more interesting. :-)
Hyperbola much? (Score:2)
No chance ... (Score:2)
Well, duh (Score:5, Insightful)
I always found the decades-long habit of "disposing" of space garbage by sending it down to burn up in Earth's atmosphere to be rather short-sighted. The atmosphere isn't a true bottomless /dev/null without consequences any more than the ocean is.
Re: (Score:3)
It's come to a head now because launching is getting cheaper, and everyone wants a 10,000+ satellite constellation. I said before that we had little idea what the consequences of dumping that amount of material into the upper atmosphere to burn up would be, but it looks like now we do.
The problem is that there aren't any good alternatives. Satellites can move up into higher graveyard orbits, but that takes more fuel that de-orbiting them. Anything further, like flinging them into the sun, is going to need e
path to the stars (Score:2)
The only path to the stars I'm aware of is in Hollywood. Humanity is no way on any path to any astronomical object even one light year away.